Originally posted by UnderGetty
The inter species / alien angle is an interesting one...

As far as a marriage post mortem, the person can certainly consent while they're still alive.

In the case of a ritual marriage ceremony where split personalities are involved, all parties are consenting. All personalities within a physical body
are just as real and valid.

A post-mortem marriage would never be allowed because it would need to be taken to court and there is no "standing to sue."

A court, well the Supreme Court anyways, will not hear a case unless one of the parties has something either to directly gain or lose in the case. In
the issue of a non-living human there is none so they would not hear it.

Multiple personalities also would not hold up since that condition is considered a mental disease and therefore no court would find the person to be
sane enough to decide on a marriage issue for themselves.

If gay couples want to be legally married it should be their right to do so, debatting why they need a formal wedding made
legal is ridiculous, why do straight people feel the need to? It's a choice, each to their own as long as they are consenting adults.

Originally posted by Hopechest
And currently 31 states I bellieve have amended their constitutions to define marriage as between a man and a woman.

If the Court overturns this then there's no reason they wouldn't also overturn the state laws regarding incestual marriage. In fact, they would be
guilty of discrimination if they let it stand.

This bunk again? Let's face it. The world is growing up. If the US wants to remain backwards fine. I'm certainly going to remember this the next
time an American tells me to butt out it's not my country.

If gay couples want to be legally married it should be their right to do so, debatting why they need a formal wedding made
legal is ridiculous, why do straight people feel the need to? It's a choice, each to their own as long as they are consenting adults.

Well, people get married for a reason surely. Anything else is like walking through life like a sheep. I can't see how it is ridiculous to expect a
justification.

Why do straight people choose to get married?

Well I can think of one very good reason immediately - to make a lifelong covenant with God, to become one flesh, and live as He intended.

I don't really understand why people of no particular faith go through a marriage ceremony (or why ministers conduct such ceremonies) but there you go
- such is the world.

The word marriage actually has a very definite meaning but again, in this dumbed down world where people no longer know the difference (or care)
between such words as enormity and enormousness, all I can do is marvel at the enormity of this day.

Well homosexuality was never considered that big of a deal in almost all of the ancient cultures. It was readily accepted and not shunned and it
wasn't until the rise of the great religions we have today, all of which appeared in a very short timeframe, that is was frowned upon.

I'd imagine that as the world becomes more secular that we are returning to a previous moral standard where it is considered acceptable. I'm sure
this will last until the next great spiritual enlightenment period.

Originally posted by micmerci
This is about entitlement, benefits, and money. Anyone who says differently is kidding themselves.

So, are you saying that I married my opposite-gender partner for money, benefits and entitlements?

Yay, NZ!!!

Hopefully, the US will catch up soon.

edit on 4/17/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

No, I am saying that when it comes down to it, this particular group is miffed because they are not receiving the same employment benefits as hetero
couples. (By stating this fact, does not mean I have an opinion on the matter) But proponents are dressing it up with flowery statements about
equality and civil rights. I just think all parties should be honest and say that the big push is really about money$$.

I don't want to come across as biased or with a certain tone in my response. I think those that oppose on a civil level (outside of religion) also
oppose for monetary reasons.

At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about incestos wanting to get married. However it poses a biological threat when offspring come into play
(birth defects/quality of life), which then poses a societal threat (potential burden on health care system/weakens the gene pool). Homo sex does
neither, as a) children can't be born and b) the absence of a gene set won't weaken the gene the pool. Therefore homo marriage can't be compared
to incesto marriage.

Anyone who uses religion as an argument has intellectually failed.

Congratulations enzed on being more progressive than us, your big Australian siblings (no we don't want to marry you and have freak ausnz kids).

Originally posted by izero
At the end of the day, I couldn't care less about incestos wanting to get married. However it poses a biological threat when offspring come into play
(birth defects/quality of life), which then poses a societal threat (potential burden on health care system/weakens the gene pool). Homo sex does
neither, as a) children can't be born and b) the absence of a gene set won't weaken the gene the pool. Therefore homo marriage can't be compared to
incesto marriage.

Anyone who uses religion as an argument has intellectually failed.

Congratulations enzed on being more progressive than us, your big Australian siblings (no we don't want to marry you and have freak ausnz kids).

But if someone in the relationship is sterile that would negate that portion of the argument. I also believe the courts have settled law that you can
not deny a marriage because of a possible risk to future children. It had to do with an HIV case I believe.

Also important to note is the fact that incestual relationships date just about as far back as homosexual ones do and was openly practiced among the
ruling elite for a very long time.

If they are sterile then there is no issue, however it is a caveat. That courts are allowing people with serious genetic defects or deadly
transmittable diseases to breed is immensely irresponsible and immoral (plenty of parentless 3rd world children out there)and very obviously a
decision based on emotion. The fact is that homosexuality does no harm the the gene pool, the reduction of people breeding is a positive and the homos
can act as surrogates. The only way incestos can be the same is if at least one partner is sterile (note this doesn't mean that I believe a incest
couple will definitely produce a defective offspring but it due to lack of genetic variation there are high risks).

I am aware that historically royal families are highly incestuous, I don't think the practice is as common now however.

Like I said I don't care about anyone getting married, really couldn't care if a dude wanted to marry a hatstand... The only concern that should be
investigated is breeding.

Originally posted by Hopechest
I am just bringing up following actions which I believe will occur once homosexual marriage is legally accepted. It is for others to decide if they
wish to open that pandora's box.

Why would gay marriage be a "gateway" to incestual marriage? Any more than mixed race marriage, or atheistic for example? Seems if a brother wanted to
marry a sister, they would have been fighting for it all along. They're not waiting around for gay marriage to become legal.

In New Zealand this change in the word marriage was pushed through without a mandate or public support. .
The gay Mp's pushing this bill are all in there personal relationships that they denied and said they were being discriminated against.
The only public support was from the ignorant people that believed the gay MP's campaign that their "love was illegal" and that they were not
allowed state sanctioned personal relationships in NZ.

Maybe these gay politicians who forced the change in a social institution will stop lying about, denying and invalidating their personal
relationships.
It was always about power, as these gay Mp's ( and their lawyer partners) had everything others had in their a state sanctioned personal
relationships in NZ.
It is funny to me that they invalidated their own personal relationships, told lies that NZ didsn't allow their personal relationships, separated
themselves from the public made themselves unpopular to get.... an openly gay PM.
The desire for power makes people crazy.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.